flipper wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:30:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not
simi auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not
that I care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see
this CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment
as they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the
first, fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of
the art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

A stun setting would be a heck of an improvement, doncha think?


Graham

I thought that is what tasers were for. Mostly non-lethal, normally quite
incapacitating (except for someone high on PCP).

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller